|
|
|
|
| Home > Draft Report > Comments |
The report should note that the telephone survey did not include any questions regarding the respondents' use of forest products - i.e., whether they use and enjoy wood and paper products. The respondents were not asked whether they would be willing to forego a chance to remodel their home in order to protect wetlands, and survey respondents were not asked if they realized that restricting forest production would lead to greater use of non-renewable substitutions. -- Draft Report
Text has been added to the section on "needs for future research" to acknowledge the limitations that you raise. -- Final Report
The report should provide a more thorough discussion and explanation of the survey on which findings are based. Many of the questions were narrowly focused. For example, various uses of forestland were cast as mutually exclusive and complimentary relationships were ignored. The results can be legitimately criticized as severely biased. -- Draft Report
Unfortunately, there is only a limited space for the text of each chapter to add indepth detail about the survey methods and discussion of results. However, I have included a section in the "needs for future research" that acknowledges the concerns and limitations to the study that you have raised. -- Final Report
The survey on which the chapter's findings are based was poorly designed and narrowly focused. As a result, the conclusions drawn are severely biased. Various uses of forests are cast as mutually exclusive and complimentary relationships are ignored. This chapter is largely based on public opinion research. Valid results are achievable only if the research survey and the study plan are properly designed. The conclusions noted in this chapter are not credible because of inadequacies in the survey design. -- Draft Report
Please refer to my responses to concerns #30 and #31 as there is considerable overlap among this and the other two issues. Basically, text has been added to the section on "needs for future research" to address the limitations that you raise. -- Final Report
Section 6: This section recognizes the potential roles of foresters in managing southern forests for both economic and non-economic values. It omits a discussion as to how, in a framework of largely private land, such goals may be achieved. Nor does it reflect the ethical obligations of professional foresters to manage not only for sustainable forests, but also for the management goals of the landowner. -- Draft Report
The following text has been added to section 6 to address your concerns (additional text has been kept breif at the request of the editors). "Furthermore, these goals must also be considered in light of the extensive industrial and non-industrial private land that exists in the South, recognizing the multiple and varied outcomes desired by each landowner. Identifying the publics’ values and attitudes of forests is a first step in understanding the complexities of providing for multiple outcomes of our public and private forests and in addressing the potential costs and benefits to all foresters when making land management decisions." -- Final Report
Socio-2 refers to four questions that are not included in the web-based report: (a) what are the social, economic, and demographic characteristics of southern residents? (b) what are the public attitudes and values toward private and public forests? (c) how do environmental attitudes and values differ among various segments of the South's population? (d) what are some broad changes that are likely to occur in the public attitudes and values toward forests and their management? Were these questions addressed? -- Draft Report
Yes, these questions were addressed. A short narrative has been included in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first page of SOCIO-2 which raises the four questions. -- Final Report
|
|
webmaster: John M. Pye |
created: 4-OCT-2002 |